Karnataka High Court
Bhujabali S/O Bhojarajappa Gunjal vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 8 December, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
W.P.No.113912/2019 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
Bhujabali
s/o.Bhojarajappa Gunjal
Age : 58 years, Occ : agriculture
r/o.Hammigi, Now r/o.Magala
Tq. Huvinahadagali, Dist. Bellari 583 219
.. PETITIONER
(By Sri.Archana Magadum - Adv.)
AND:
The Special Land Acquisition Officer
S.L.I.P, Huvinahadagali 583 219
Dist. Bellari .. RESPONDENT
(By Sri.Vinayaka K.S. - HCGP)
-----
This writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order at
Annexure-F dated 12.7.2019 in Civil Misc No.06/2016 passed by the
learned Senior Civil Judge, Mundargi.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing in B group, this
day, the court made the following:
2
ORDER
The petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 12.7.2019, passed in Civil Miscellaneous No.6/2016 by the learned Senior Civil Judge Mundargi, has filed this writ petition.
2. Brief facts of the petitioner's case are that the petitioner claims to be the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.386 measuring 8 acres 3 guntas, Sy.No.387 measuring 7 acres 19 guntas and Sy.No.389 measuring 7 acres 9 guntas, Sy.No.388 measuring 9 guntas situated at Hammigi village. The respondent having proposed to acquire of land at Hammigi village issued a notification Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of 1894') vide notification dated 25.02.2010 for the purpose of construction of irrigation project near Mundawad Village. The Government has issued final notification under sub section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act of 1894 dated 11.5.2011 declaring that the land is acquired for the above said purpose. The respondent has passed an award on 19.9.2013. The respondent has issued notice under Sub Section (2) of Section 12 of the 3 said Act of 1894 on 9.9.2014 and the same was served on the petitioner on 29.9.2014. The petitioner received compensation amount under protest and filed an application under sub section (1) of Section 18 of the said Act of 1894 on 31.10.2014. The reference application filed by the petitioner was not referred to the Reference Court. The petitioner filed Civil Miscellaneous No.6/2016 dated 28.6.2016 under clause (b) of sub section (3) of Section 18 of the said Act of 1894 to direct the Deputy Commissioner to make a reference. The trial Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned AGA.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed an application under sub section (1) of Section 18 of the said Act of 1894. The Deputy Commissioner has not forwarded the said application to the Reference Court. Hence, the petitioner has filed an application (Civil Misc No.06/2016) under clause (b) of sub section (3) of Section 18 of 4 the said Act of 1894 to direct the Deputy Commissioner to make a reference. The trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, prayed to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned AGA submits that the trial Court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.
6. Heard and perused the records.
7. It is not in dispute that the land of the petitioner was acquired and award came to be passed. The petitioner has received the compensation under protest and the petitioner has filed an application under sub section (1) of Section 18 of the said Act of 1894 for referring the matter to the Reference Court.
8. As per clause (a) of sub section (3) of Section 18 of the said Act of 1894, the Deputy Commissioner is required to forward the application to the Court within 90 days from the date of receipt of the application. In the present case the petitioner has filed an application for reference on 31.10.2014 before expiry of 90 days. The Deputy Commissioner has not 5 forwarded the application filed by the petitioner under sub section (1) of Section 18 of the said Act of 1894. If the Deputy commissioner fails to refer the application to the Court within 90 days from the date of receipt of application, then the land looser may apply to the Court to direct the Deputy Commissioner to make a reference as per clause (b) of sub section (3) of Section 18 of the said Act of 1894. In the present case, the petitioner has filed an application seeking a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to refer the protest petition under sub section (1) of Section 18 of the said Act of 1894. The trial Court without considering the said aspect has proceeded to pass an order by making observations in paragraphs 8 and 9 of its order, which are extracted below :-
"8. In order to prove his case petitioner has reiterated the facts narrated in his petition. Copy of the protest petition dtd. 31.10.2014 filed before the respondent is marked as Ex.P1. Ex.P2 is the list of documents. Copy of the notice issued U/Sec.12(2) of CPC pertains to land Sy.No.386 measuring 8 guntas, Sy.No.387 measuring 13 guntas, Sy.No.389 measuring 10 guntas are marked as Ex.P3 to 5. RoRs of land Sy.No.386 measuring 8 acres 3 guntas, Sy.No.387 6 measuring 7 acres 19 guntas, Sy.No.389 measuring 7 acres 9 guntas are marked as Ex.P6 to 8.
9. On going through the Ex.P1 to 5, it is noticed that, only Sy.No.386 measuring 8 guntas, Sy.No.387 measuring 13 guntas, Sy.No.389 measuring 10 guntas are acquired by the respondent and compensation is paid as per the admission given by the petitioner. But as per his case, Sy.No.386 measuring 8 acres 03 guntas, Sy.No.387 measuring 7 acres 19 guntas, Sy.No.389 measuring 7 acres 9 guntas Sy.No.388 measuring 9 acres 10 guntas of Hammagi Village are acquired by the respondent. Under such circumstances, it is clear that, case of the petitioner does not tally with the documents furnished by him. Further there is no document on record to show that, Sy.No.388 measuring 9 acres 10 guntas is standing in his name. Further there is no document on record to show that, in Sy.No.388 any portion of the land or full area of Sy.No.388 is acquired by the respondent.:"
9. The reasons assigned by the trial Court in the impugned order is not relevant for the purposes of deciding the petition filed under clause (b) of sub section (3) of Section 18 of the said Act of 1894. Hence, the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. 7
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 12.7.2019 passed in Civil Miscellaneous No.6/2016 by the learned Senior Civil Judge Mundargi is set aside. The application filed by the petitioner under sub section (1) of Section 18 of the said Act of 1894 before the Deputy Commissioner is allowed. The Deputy Commissioner is directed to make a reference within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE rs